In the frigid evening throng of Times Square, I watch a pair of obese out-of-town salesmen-types nearly get trampled as they step off the curb into the path of a horseback-mounted police officer. "They still use a lot of horses here," one guy drawls, playing it off like nothing happened. "Crowd control."

Consciously or not, the astute visitor had picked up on New York City's traditional policy for the management of open, public space: Control it by making it as hostile and unpleasant as possible. Keep people moving until they have safely settled in a store, theater, office, apartment or some other paid-for private space. Times Square is the ultimate embodiment of this policy. New York City's premier public space, the "crossroads of the world" is a place that most New Yorkers either avoid or plow through as quickly as possible.

Over the last ten years, as Times Square has been cleaned and built up (or Disneyfied, depending on whether you miss the ability to masturbate at the movies), its sidewalks have become increasingly congested. On a Saturday night at the height of tourist season, as many as 20,000 pedestrians funnel past the Virgin Megastore in the space of an hour. At least 15 percent of them are forced to walk in the street, according to Tim Tompkins, president of the Times Square Alliance. There simply isn't enough room on the sidewalks anymore.

Today, 200 percent more pedestrians use Times Square than in 1980. In the coming decade, pedestrian traffic is expected to grow significantly as tourism continues its rise and the Bank of America, the New York Times, and other big development projects add millions of square feet of new commercial and residential space to Times Square and the blocks immediately west.

The problem is obvious, as is the solution. Pedestrians outnumber motorists by at least five to one, yet some 60 percent of Times Square's public space is dedicated to motor vehicle traffic. "For the people who work in many of the new offices in Times Square, sidewalk conditions and congestion is the number one quality of life issue," Tompkins says.

Clearly, the cars have got to go. The only viable way for New York City to continue to have healthy growth and development is to begin to take away space from automobiles and reallocate it to pedestrians and mass transit. Times Square is the perfect place to start this process.

In various quarters, the idea of turning Times Square into a pedestrian environment is being discussed with increasing seriousness. The most comprehensive plan is George Haikalis and Roxanne Warren's Vision42. They propose opening up 42nd St. to pedestrians from river to river with a modern light rail surface transit system running down the middle.

All over Europe, Haikalis notes, big cities have reaped enormous economic and quality of life benefits by pedestrianizing their urban cores. "Even car-dependent, sprawling suburban American cities like Minneapolis and Denver have thriving, auto-free downtowns."

So, what's it going to take to convince New York City to make Times Square a truly great public space? A truck bomb? Let's hope not. Watch in the next four years as federal homeland security becomes a rationale and funding source for desirable but politically difficult urban planning improvements like congestion pricing and car-free public spaces.

4:35 PM | Link | (6) comments   

Nineteen-fifties concept cars were the ultimate dream machines. The shiny, tail-finned vehicles "headed to your driveway soon!" reflected a vision of a comfortable, optimistic American future just up the road. Boy, have times changed. The World of Tomorrow envisioned by the designers of this year's Ford SYNus could hardly be more bleak.

According to Ford's marketing brochure, the SYNus is an armored "techno sanctuary" with "intimidating styling." The gun turret slits on the van's sides are -- no kidding -- "non-opening and bullet-resistant." It's compact enough to "maneuver" tight urban streets yet "bold enough to run with the big dogs." When you're done driving (or you've completed your mission), you don't just shift this vehicle into "park," you lock it in "secure mode" and "deploy" protective shutters over the windshield and side glass. Who needs public space when the interior of the SYNus can "transform into a mini-home theater with multi-configuration seating and multi-media work station." Rather than a rear window it's got a 45-inch flat panel TV screen with Internet access, game console readiness, and rear-mounted outdoor video cameras that let you monitor your dangerous urban surroundings.

So, why does the citizenry need -- er, excuse me -- why does the market demand such a vehicle? According to Ford, "As the population shifts back to the big cities, you'll need a rolling urban command center."

We will? That's an interesting thesis. The way I see it, as big cities like New York grow more populous, as the complications of declining global oil supply hit home, and as climate change becomes a more tangible, in-our-face issue over the next 10 to 20 years, we'll be working overtime to redesign our cities to be increasingly car-free. Like most of the stomper 4x4's churned out by Detroit these days, the Ford SYNus doesn't have a place in the healthy, functional city of 2020. It belongs in a bleak and terrifying urban future that I can't see many of us wanting to live in.

In the end, this car is the logical extension of SUV marketing. The more intimidating and aggressive vehicles there are out on the road, the more you need one too, lest you be squashed. It's an arms race and the Ford SYNus is the latest weapon you need to defend yourself. In the past, automobile manufacturers marketed to our basest desires. The SYNus is marketed to our basest fears. It's hard to know if this "rolling urban command center" is designed for urbanites fearful of terrorism, or for the terrorists themselves.

Perhaps the Ford designers who developed the SYNus are making an artistic statement -- an observation about what things have come to on the roads of America. The New York Times seems to think so. They call the SYNus "the boldest, most honest rhetoric" at this year's big car show.

But that's a little like saying General Motors' Yukon Denali SUV is a commentary on the rapidly melting glaciers near Alaska's Mount Denali. We don't look to Detroit to stand on society's sidelines and issue bold rhetoric. The automobile business does more to shape the world we live in that just about any other sector of American industry. If the American urban environment is soon to be so terrifying that we require a rolling "bank vault" to take the kids to soccer practice, then let's acknowledge that our own, extreme car dependence has had a hand in making it so. The dysfunctional, traffic-choked, road raging, oil-addicted present is a version of the future that Detroit very much helped to envision, design and produce.

Accounting for everything from the angry horn-blasting outside my Brooklyn window to the need for a massive US military presence alongside our Middle East gas station, American car culture has become one of the most destructive forces on the planet today. We obviously need much more than bold rhetoric from Detroit. We need them to begin producing and agressively marketing low-emission, high fuel efficiency vehicles. And we need them to help Americans understand how our cars are hurting us in the same way that Big Tobacco now supports anti-smoking initiatives. We need some more of that old, 1950's vision and optimism but this time coupled with a deep sense of responsibility and accountabilty for the mess they've made of our American landscape.

And let's all hope that American urban dwellers never need one of these...

Thanks to Ken Avidor for sending the SYNus my way.


7:25 PM | Link | (5) comments   

As vehicles have grown bigger and more intimidating, so too have their horns. In New York City, the horn is used not for emergencies but to express aggravation or to tell pedestrians to get out of the way. When you blast your horn, you're basically shouting "fuck you" at 70 decibels in the middle of a crowded street. Horn-blasting is profoundly anti-social behavior. Look up the clinical definition of sociopath. You'll see that it pretty much describes a New York City motorist.

Back in the day I was a one-man pedestrian insurrection. The most common anti-honking technique I employed was to step out into the street and, moving quickly, smack down with great force on the honker's roof with open palms. When possible, I would perform the smack directly above the driver's head. It's best to use this technique in mid-honk to ensure that the motorist is able to make the connection between his behavior and your reaction. It is remarkably gratifying to stop a honk with your bare hands.

My second (and favorite) technique could really only be used on warm summer days. I would approach the honker's open passenger window with an innocent, inquisitive look on my face, pointing to my wrist as if I were about to ask the time. Then I would lean into the car and honk back at the driver at the absolute top of my lungs.

New York City motorists can't stand to be confronted about their anti-social behavior. Cocooned in plush bucket seats, talking on the phone, surrounded by cup-holders, today's car interior is designed to help the motorist forget he is in public space. When you confront New York City motorists about their assholish behavior—even if you just politely tap on their window, as I have done, and say, "Hey, why did you blast your horn like that back there?" they tend to freak out. It's as if a stranger is walking into their bedroom and telling them to turn down the volume on their tv.

When you're meting out vigilante justice to honkers, there are a few basic rules to follow. Most important, stand to the side of the vehicle as you smack it, not in front where you can be run over. Before you confront a honker, make sure you've scoped out an escape route. The ideal confrontation scenario is a one-way street with too much traffic for the honker to back up or turn around and come after you. If you're acting alone, stick to single-passenger vehicles.

Most likely, the confronted honker will think that you are the dangerous sociopath and will not leave his car to come after you. Hopefully, he will think about the incident on his drive home. He will sleep fitfully that night. And the next time he drives into the city, he will be terrified by the idea that pissed-off New York City pedestrians are leaping out into the street and attacking those who honk their horns too much.


4:00 PM | Link | (5) comments   

In midtown the other day, I came across an MTA bus plastered with an ad for the Discovery Channel's Pompeii: The Last Day. It showed an exploding volcano and asked, "How do you outrun an eruption that's faster than this bus?"

It made me laugh. Whomever wrote the copy for that ad has a serious misunderstanding of either geology or New York City transportation. I don't know about a volcanic eruption, but if you want to outrun a bus in midtown Manhattan, all you have to do is walk.

New York City has the slowest buses in America. The M34, winner of the 2004 Pokey Award, lurches across town at 4 mph (slower than the average cruising speed of a king penguin). And you can ride the train to Philadelphia in less time than it takes the M15 to run its 10-mile route from South Ferry to East Harlem.

Of course, it doesn't have to be so bad. While New York bus riders agonize, cities around the world are setting up bus rapid transit. The best BRT systems give buses their own dedicated lanes separate from cars and trucks. Fares are collected on the platform before passengers board, reducing the waiting time at each stop. The vehicles are extra-long, clean-burning and have low floors, again, for fast boarding. Real-time information systems let passengers know exactly when the next bus will arrive and allow routers to manage more effectively. And buses have signal priority. If a bus is running late, traffic lights automatically turn green for it.

BRT has produced dramatic increases in bus speeds, reliability and ridership. Bogotá, Columbia is one of the biggest successes. BRT has been a key part of this city of seven million's rapid transformation from a traffic-choked disaster to a model of sustainable urban development.

BRT is a no-brainer for New York City. First and Second Avenues are begging for it, and there are obvious routes in the outer boroughs as well. Compared to light rail (which could also be great here), BRT is fast and cheap to start up, and there is a pile of federal funding available for it.

But in the same amount of time that Bogotá transformed itself, New York will have only managed to hire consultants to do a $2 million study (You could fill an extra-long, double-articulated bus with the dusty tomes of unheeded NYC transportation studies. If every dollar that was paid to transportation consultants over the last 30 years were actually put into transportation improvements, well, now that would be an interesting study...) The MTA has earmarked $22 million in its 2005-2009 capital plan to implement the study's recommendations. They and their consultants are appearing in each borough to present the idea of BRT and foster a "public involvement process."

I attended the meeting at Brooklyn Borough Hall last week and, frankly, I got the same feeling I often get at these meetings: A little less bureaucratic process and a little more fascism might be a good thing here. In the outer boroughs in particular, much of the public is never going to be happy with the idea taking away a lane of travel capacity or parking and dedicating it to mass transit. But this is simply what we have to do to begin to prepare New York City for the serious macro-environmental challenges of the 21st century. So, let's go. Let's stop "studying" and let's start "doing." Let's get some tests and experiments up and running and then study those.

As usual, the future of BRT in New York City comes down to funding. The measly allocation of $22 million essentially ensures that we won't have real BRT any time soon. Rather, New York is much more likely to get something like Boston's Silver Line. Unlike Bogotá, Boston didn't have the cajones to restrict private cars. So now Boston's got the "Silver Lie," an expensive bus with a new coat of paint stuck behind the same old double-parked, single-passenger SUVs. Ultimately, the real barrier to getting BRT up and running isn't technological or fiscal. It's cultural and political. To make BRT work New York City needs to muster up the will to take away a lane of traffic from the spoiled urban motorist.

Bus rapid transit in Bogota, a town with the cajones to keep automobiles in their place...

2:11 PM | Link | (3) comments   

The NYPD has lost yet another round in its legal battle against the Critical Mass bike ride. On Thursday, December 23, U.S. District judge William H. Pauley denied the city's request for an injunction that would prevent Critical Mass cyclists from gathering and riding without city permits.

Judge Pauley's ruling was a victory for cyclists, but only a defensive one. It doesn't do anything to stop the NYPD's aggressive crackdown on cyclists. The real benefits of Bray vs. City of New York will likely be felt in the long-term. Attorney Norman Siegel's legal team is helping Critical Massers shed public light on the irrationality of New York City's dysfunctional, car-oriented transportation policies and the NYPD's role in enforcing them.

One of the most telling moments of the Dec. 8 hearing came during attorney Steven Hyman's cross-examination of NYPD Assistant Chief Bruce Smolka. Hyman wanted Smolka to explain exactly how the police define a "procession" of bikes. Would 100 bikes be a procession requiring a permit? How about 50? 20? For three hours, Smolka avoided answering. Finally, in attempting to justify his officers' arrest of seven cyclists at Union Square on November 26, Hyman backed Smolka into a corner. Yes, Smolka, said, seven cyclists riding together in the street and obeying all traffic rules may be considered a "procession." They could be arrested if they didn't have a permit. Seven cars, trucks or SUVs doing the same thing? No, that's traffic. "Roadways are designed primarily for vehicles to travel in," not bicycles, Smolka said. Cycling in a group, in other words, is criminal in New York City. (You can read a PDF version of the decision right here. This bit of Smolka's testimony can be found on pages 20-21).

Locking your bike is also illegal in New York according to the NYPD. Transportation Alternatives' amicus curiae brief shredded the police department's justification for seizing hundreds of bicycles that were locked to lampposts, signs and street fixtures. In its argument, TA noted that there are 6375 miles of street in New York City and 3400 bike racks. That makes for one legal bike rack every two miles, or one legal bike rack for every 33 cyclists. In New York, if you can't lock your bike to a lamppost, then you can't lock your bike. The NYPD is essentially arguing for the criminalization of cycling.

Some of the sharpest testimony came from Charlie Komanoff, an economist and environmental activist. Komanoff demolished DOT Deputy Commissioner Michael Primeggia's claims that Critical Mass creates unacceptable traffic delays and threats to public safety. On an average day of New York City gridlock, Komanoff calculates, motorists experience a total of 730,000 vehicle hours of delay. A large Critical Mass ride creates, at most, an additional 750 vehicle-hours of delay, an amount that is "statistically invisible against the backdrop of ordinary traffic delays in Manhattan and New York City." The arguments Komanoff assembled for this case lay the theoretical groundwork for a major revamping of New York City transportation policy. It's worth reading for yourself: http://www.rightofway.org/Declaration2.pdf.

2:53 PM | Link | (0) comments